Folks,
Monica, Asir, Dan, Fabian and I agreed to propose the following as the
resolution for this issue
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4262.
1. We now think this issue is actually on the Primer rather than the
Guidelines document, as it is related to composition of a policy expression
(that uses optional and ignorable flags on assertions) rather than design of
assertions.
2. We propose adding the following as a new subsection that follows the
description of the Optional Assertions (section 2.6) and Ignorable
Expressions (Section 2.7), in the Primer.
Updated proposal:
"2.8 Marking Assertions both Optional and Ignorable
As described in the sections above and in Section 3.4.1, WS-Policy 1.5
specification defines two attributes that can be used to mark an assertion:
wsp:Optional and wsp:Ignorable.
The WS-Policy Framework allows a policy assertion to be marked with both
"optional" and "Ignorable" simultaneously. The presence of
"@wsp:optional=true" on an assertion is a syntactic compact form for two
alternatives, one with the assertion and the other without the assertion.
Hence syntactically marking an assertion "A" with both the @wsp:Optional and
@wsp:Ignorable with the value of "true" for both, is equivalent to two
alternatives; one where the assertion A exists with @wsp:Ignorable=true and
the second where the assertion A does not exist.
========
Note: Separately Monica / Fabian plan to address issue of understandability
and mode (?) with Section 3.4.1 and reference back to Section 2.8 if needed.
Thanks,
Prasad